Telegram shutdown a ‘band-aid solution’ to exam fraud: IFF

The Internet Freedom Foundation criticised the government's temporary Telegram restrictions ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 re-exam, calling them disproportionate and ineffective. It argued that targeted action against fraudulent channels was sufficient and demanded transparency regarding the legal basis for the curbs

New Delhi: The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) on Tuesday criticised the government’s curbs on Telegram and disabling of its message-editing feature ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 re-exam, calling the move a band-aid solution and a “disproportionate” response to exam fraud.

In a statement on X, the digital rights advocacy outfit expressed its objection to the directions announced today in the National Testing Agency’s press release.

---

“Shutting down Telegram is a band aid solution and is a disproportionate answer to exam fraud. On the NTA’s recommendation, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has, under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, restricted access to the whole of Telegram in India until 22 June 2026, and has separately ordered the platform to switch off message-editing for every Indian user until 30 June 2026,” it said.

“This is a blunt, nationwide measure aimed at the conduct of rampant fraud rackets, and on the Government’s own admission is constitutionally incompatible,” it said.

IFF said Section 69A and the Blocking Rules of 2009 framed under it allow the government to block access to specific “information” on a computer resource and “do not extend to switching off an entire intermediary, still less to ordering a company to redesign its product by removing a feature for a whole country.” “In Shreya Singhal v Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld Section 69A because it is narrow and hedged with procedural safeguards. Reading it to authorise shutting down a platform that lakhs use is an overbroad restriction by the NTAs own admission,” the outfit said.

For the message-editing direction, the release identified “no source of power at all”. If one exists, the order must say so, it said. IFF argued that the government’s own account showed that the block failed the constitutional test of proportionality.

“The release argues against itself. A restriction on access has to be the least intrusive measure that achieves its aim as per the constitutional test of proportionality laid down in Justice K S Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) and applied in Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020),” it said.

Citing the NTA release, it said the agency’s own narration shows the block failed its nodal agency had secured the “prompt take-down of a substantial number of Telegram channels, groups and bots” and that the targeted work “is the reason the harm caused by these rackets has been contained to the extent it has.”

“If channel level takedown contained the harm, the case for a blanket block collapses,” IFF said, adding that the government has reached for a “heavier tool” while conceding that a lighter one was working.
The statement also referred to the NTA’s acknowledgement that the block “affects lakhs of citizens who use the Telegram platform for legitimate personal, educational, professional and informational purposes.”

“The collateral cost sits on the record too as noted in the press release,” IFF said. It also flagged the NTA conceding in its release that there is “no such paper available outside the secured examination chain” and that “the security of the examination is unaffected by the action taken.”

The organisation said that if the exam is secure and no leak exists, what is being suppressed is rumour, and rumour cannot justify closing a platform when specific blocking and criminal prosecution remain available.

The organisation said the block came in the final days of NEET preparation, when thousands of students depended on Telegram for study groups, doubt-clearing and shared resources.

“The block of telegram is reactive and ineffective and will punish ordinary users instead of addressing the systemic source of exam leaks,” it said.

“It is important to consider that the source of exam papers leak will occur from inside the system, among insiders and across the printing and logistics chain, with the platform being the most downstream channel for distribution,” it said.

“Hence, switching off Telegram is merely a deflection from the repeated failures that will continue while media attention is directed towards this Telegram ban,” the statement added.

IFF also raised concerns over transparency, saying the MeitY order had not been made public. “The Anuradha Bhasin decision requires that orders restricting access be published so they can be tested in court. Here the order, and the reasoning of the committee behind it, stay out of view, and we do not know whether Telegram was heard at all,” it said.

IFF said app-level blocks usually run through ISP-level DNS and IP filtering and are “over inclusive”, sweeping in lawful use while being easy to evade.

“A determined exam leak racket moves to a VPN or a mirror within minutes while ordinary users lose the service for a week,” it said. IFF asked the government to publish the MeitY Section 69A order and the NTA recommendation behind it revealing the reasoning behind its orders.

“We emphasise that the NEET (UG) 2026 re-examination is worth protecting and it concerns the future of lakhs of aspirants. It requires securing the entire process of examination rather than reaching for purported band aid solutions that instead cause more harm,” IFF said.

“The State cannot switch off a service used by lakhs to answer the wrongdoing of a few, and cannot do it through an order no one affected is allowed to read. On its own facts, the Government has done both,” it added.